Page 1 of 2 [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jul 2011, 5:54 pm

Philologos wrote:
Oodain wrote:

arrogant much?

so if there is no evidence that he took a nap, he didnt?
but if there is a god and there is no evidence there is a god, there is?


It is not arrogance ro recognize an insincere and / or ignorant heckler who like the LA idiot has chosen to latch onto me.

There is no evidence IN THE TEXT that God took a nap - in fact, there is no claim in the text that God took a nap.

There is in the text the repeated and varied claim that God exists and did a variety of things. The bald statement in the text of course is not in and of itself conclusive evidence. As Joseph Smith and Mohammad and Helen Schucman have amply demonstrated, anybody can put together a holy book.

The evidence for God's existence - that which I have observed myself and the reports of large numbers of credible witnesses [and of course I know, as repeatedly shown here, that one man's competent witness is anothers witless nincompoop] is separate from the Bible. If God does not exist, the collection is worth little more than the Ugaritic literature and the Urantia Book.

Though, as I have pointed out separately, there are elements in the texts NOT typical of mythic or folk literature which are consistent with a divinely inspired sourcde AFTER one gives credit to the existence of a divine entity.


All I said was that the Bible does not record every moment of existence and therefore its record does not exclude possible unmentioned occurrences. Your fury at my indication that things not mentioned might have occurred is evidence of something rather peculiar.
I leave it up to you what that peculiarity might be.

Your indication that the existence of God for you is determined by witnesses satisfactory to you in no way demands that those witnesses are satisfactory to anybody else.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

06 Jul 2011, 7:33 pm

Sand wrote:

All I said was that the Bible does not record every moment of existence and therefore its record does not exclude possible unmentioned occurrences. Your fury at my indication that things not mentioned might have occurred is evidence of something rather peculiar.
I leave it up to you what that peculiarity might be.

Your indication that the existence of God for you is determined by witnesses satisfactory to you in no way demands that those witnesses are satisfactory to anybody else.


My fury? Why do you read everything as if you wrote it? I find annoying your obstinate and possibly intentional misinterpretation of what I said. I despise slimeworms who put their tongues in others' mouths.

One more time - WHERE did I say that the evidence I have seen for Slavic palatalization or God''s existence or the breeze outside my window should satisfy anybody?

I am not trying to persuade anyone of any of these.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

06 Jul 2011, 7:58 pm

Philologos wrote:
Sand wrote:

All I said was that the Bible does not record every moment of existence and therefore its record does not exclude possible unmentioned occurrences. Your fury at my indication that things not mentioned might have occurred is evidence of something rather peculiar.
I leave it up to you what that peculiarity might be.

Your indication that the existence of God for you is determined by witnesses satisfactory to you in no way demands that those witnesses are satisfactory to anybody else.


My fury? Why do you read everything as if you wrote it? I find annoying your obstinate and possibly intentional misinterpretation of what I said. I despise slimeworms who put their tongues in others' mouths.

One more time - WHERE did I say that the evidence I have seen for Slavic palatalization or God''s existence or the breeze outside my window should satisfy anybody?

I am not trying to persuade anyone of any of these.


You are off topic and referring to your own personal fantasies. I find you very strange but vaguely amusing. And if your violently deprecating references to my mere questioning of the basis of your affirmations does not indicate fury then your appreciation of the term is sadly lacking.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

07 Jul 2011, 9:35 am

Sand is quite right. I should not have allowed him to take this off topic. I can't remove his inputs, but let's try to get back to the point.

Which is simply:

A. God has certain standards that apply to human behavior.

B. Humans have a strong tendency not to live up to these standards. Few indeed, if any, come close.

C. God is certainly not pleased by infractions, and - as these passages demonstrate - does not give a free pass to those who are or believe they are his people.

D. It is naive to assume that because someone calls himself a Jew or Christian what he does is fine with God and normative for God's people.

-----------

The Sandian foodledoodle [yes, others blat it too] that an omnipotent God ought not to let people do bad things is an absurdism. Absurd if only that it has a creature telling its creator what he ought to be like. "You're not my real father, if you were you would give me a pony ./ not spank me." Absurd again in that we have no clue what God is trying to accomplish.

David and others who have known God have just one advantage over the rest: they can realize they need to repent. I know I do.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Jul 2011, 9:52 am

Philologos wrote:
Sand is quite right. I should not have allowed him to take this off topic. I can't remove his inputs, but let's try to get back to the point.

Which is simply:

A. God has certain standards that apply to human behavior.

B. Humans have a strong tendency not to live up to these standards. Few indeed, if any, come close.

C. God is certainly not pleased by infractions, and - as these passages demonstrate - does not give a free pass to those who are or believe they are his people.

D. It is naive to assume that because someone calls himself a Jew or Christian what he does is fine with God and normative for God's people.


-----------

The Sandian foodledoodle [yes, others blat it too] that an omnipotent God ought not to let people do bad things is an absurdism. Absurd if only that it has a creature telling its creator what he ought to be like. "You're not my real father, if you were you would give me a pony ./ not spank me." Absurd again in that we have no clue what God is trying to accomplish.

David and others who have known God have just one advantage over the rest: they can realize they need to repent. I know I do.



This habit that total idiots keep telling the world what God does or does not think is an indication that if there is a God he is either very tolerant or really does not care what people do or think or, much more likely, there simply is no God. The Bible, which is supposed to be God's word should make God very angry for being such a communicative mess and since there is no anger evident it also indicates that God most simply does not exist. I apologize for this emotional outburst but once in a while I have to speak my mind before I go and vomit. If this gets me banned, I can only be grateful I will not have to hear the insistent immature blubbering that is the incessant output in this area. Goodbye and thanks for the fish.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jul 2011, 10:29 am

Sand wrote:
This habit that total idiots keep telling the world what God does or does not think is an indication that if there is a God he is either very tolerant or really does not care what people do or think or, much more likely, there simply is no God. The Bible, which is supposed to be God's word should make God very angry for being such a communicative mess and since there is no anger evident it also indicates that God most simply does not exist. I apologize for this emotional outburst but once in a while I have to speak my mind before I go and vomit. If this gets me banned, I can only be grateful I will not have to hear the insistent immature blubbering that is the incessant output in this area. Goodbye and thanks for the fish.

I thought you LIKED King James English!

I don't know about it being a communicative mess... I think rather if God wanted to communicate something important, it would only make sense that He used human beings to communicate to a larger group of human beings, especially if His intent was to have it put into writing. And we know this because from time to time you'll see something like, "And the Lord said, 'Write this: The Lord says...' etc." So if it IS a mess, it's only in human failure to put down perfectly in words God's perfect will. That doesn't mean, however, that the underlying truths being communicated are changeable, nor does it challenge the Bible's ability to transmit those truths over a long period of time.

It also shows God's willingness to use whoever He thinks will do the best job at the task at hand. Officially there were the Levitical priests as well as the Levites as a whole who were called as God's direct representatives of Him to the Israelite community. There were also groups of prophets who could claim confirmed messages from God. Amos was a mere shepherd with no inborn qualifications for the office of priest or prophet and yet He was used by God to carry His message. So it makes sense that if the prophets are incapable of reliably teaching God's people, God will find someone who will without regard to status. If that makes language a bit rough--so be it, but there is no point in sending a message if it can't be understood by someone of one's own people. Tradition also informs us that Obadiah was an Edomite which, if true, shows that God can speak to prophets of other nations and that those same prophets can also worship Yahweh and even deliver a message to God's chosen.

Personally, I don't see exactly what problems there are with the language. But even if they ARE there, there's nothing wrong with one speaking to his own people or the people to whom God sends someone in plain language. Everyday conversations are not generally carried out in formal language, so there should not really be a problem with how the Bible is communicated.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

07 Jul 2011, 11:27 am

Without regard for the risk of damage to Sand's digestive system, the outcome of swallowing the glutinous lump that it is wrong for someone to report what he has reason to believe God has communicated while right and proper for someone to repeat - you should pardon it - ad nauseam that he believes there is no God -

We have in the scriptures and built into our psyches and in the words of the saints - canaonized and uncanonized - of uncounted faiths a pretty coherent nucleus of basic principles.

In this forum we have people talking about rights - with some interesting takes on what and why rights are.

We have people talking about obligations - what we owe our fellow humans or the spud-nosed tree mole or the planet. Again with some interesting notes on WHY these things are obligations.

If Sand has again sidetracked this to his satisfaction, could we return to the point? If, having chosen me as his enemym he wants to do the buzzard trick - http://www.ehow.com/facts_5166962_do-bu ... ow-up.html - maybe he could do his spew as personal message and not waste EVERYBODY's time.